Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If I have learnt one thing from this forum, it's not to call and communicate via email. I passed this info on to her and they are pushing for her to call them.    "Unfortunately, you will need to call us. The conversation won’t be so black and white as to therefore type over email. In a nutshell we can confirm that the request to not pay for 3 months we cannot put in place"  I emailed them back on her behalf and said that what ever is discussed over the phone will need to be put in an email so that she can review it properly. No decisions will be made on that phone call.    "Once we speak to you on the phone we will follow up with an email to confirm the options discussed. [Phone number]"   Why are they pushing for a phone call? If its not so black and white, why can they then follow up with an email?  
    • Appreciate input Andy, updated: IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;     I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim.   1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 21/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 12. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • Morning,  I am hoping someone can help, I am posting on behalf of my friend so I will try and provide as much info as possible.  Due health reasons, she is currently not working and unable to pay her contractual car finance payments. She emailed 247 Money and asked for a 3 month payment holiday, they refused this straight away with no reasons as to why. They have told her that instead she can make a payment of £200. She is currently getting £400+ a month ssp so this is not acceptable. She went back to them and explained she cannot make this payment and they have not offered an alternative plan. Its £200 or she falls into default.  She is now panicking as she does not want her car to be taken away. What options does she have?  Thank you, 
    • Read these 6 things you can do to be empathetic to other people’s views and perspectives.View the full article
    • Peter Levy says he received a call from someone pretending to be from his bank in February.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Parking company breaching DPA


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2648 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I am suing both a Parking company and a Supermarket company. Suing them for my time prepping and Appealing. Im also suing them for Breaches of the DPA.

 

One of the reasons for their breach, I have been told, is that the Parking Company passed on my details to a Debt Recovery Company AFTER a POPLA appeal was started but BEFORE the POPLA decision was made. (I won the POPLA Appeal). I have been told this was a breach of the DPA but for the life of me I cannot find any reference to passing on of details anywhere.

Can anyone help?

 

By the way. The parking company obtained my details and sent me a PCN as Keeper 6 months after the alleged parking contravention knowing there was no keeper liablility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is the PPC and who is the supermarket?

 

What DPA breaches are you suing them for?

I would rather not mention the names in case they read these forums.

 

The one Breach I have been told is valid at present is that they obtained and held on to my Data when they had no reason to. The knew or should have known there was no Keeper Liability yet the sought my details from the DVLA.

 

The other reason is the question I asked above. I have been told that the PPC had no right to pass on private details prior to a POPLA decision. Thats what I am trying to find details about

Link to post
Share on other sites

Naming names will have no effect on the advice that you are given here or the ultimate outcome of your case – as long as everything you say is true and you act in a straightforward way towards everyone.

 

Naming names helps others who are in the same position and also naming names helps to give a shot across the bows of the people you are up against if they do happen to read this thread.

 

We don't need any cloak and dagger secret squirrel stuff here

Link to post
Share on other sites

moved to the private parking forum.

 

I know what you are getting at here

but

you've sort of missed the point.

 

its not a case of they have broken any of the act by passing your details onto a dca.

and its nowt whatsoever to do with the retail chain either.

 

what MIGHT have happened is the PPC roggered the DVLA for your details under false pretences

 

but that's unproved yet

 

erics brother will be on soon

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

without a minimum of information we cant advise you

 

 

but I can say that passing on details to a dca is not a breach of the DPA UNLESS the company isnt registered with the ICO in the first place.

 

 

That is unlikely but they may have used the wrong templates when registering or not renewed their registration correctly.

 

 

Obviously we cant chack that because we dont have a clue who you are talking about so you are on your own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but I can say that passing on details to a dca is not a breach of the DPA UNLESS the company isnt registered with the ICO

It is if they had no entitlement to process the data in the first place.

 

 

I think this is the route the OP is going down [external link removed - please read our rules -dx]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Little leap of judgement but it sounds like hes been getting advice from fotl sites, and because people here didnt immediately agree, hes gone back over there

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Little leap of judgement but it sounds like hes been getting advice from fotl sites, and because people here didnt immediately agree, hes gone back over there

No he isn't following fotl stuff, he's following established law (principally Vidal-Hall Vs Google Inc and Halliday Vs Creation Consumer Finance Ltd) . Its well documented on sites like parking prankster. Unfortunately the clear guidance I linked to above from elsewhere has been deleted because it broke site rules (the linked site is commercial). Having said that it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to find either that site or one with similar advice via google

Link to post
Share on other sites

he is throwing stones up the wrong tree though. It is only the parking co he has a claim against, you cant sue someone for receiving information otherwise your local council would send out all of the rates demands to just on house and let them either pay it or pass them on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He isn't talking about suing the DCA though. If you go back and read the very first sentence of this thread, it says "I am suing both a Parking company and a Supermarket company." As I see it, he was asking whether the release of his details to the DCA constituted a breach of the DPA by the parking company

Link to post
Share on other sites

the answer to that point is still NO

 

why does he want to sue the supermarket,

who have not handled his personal data and have (if the paperwork was done properly) assigned all rights to the parking co.

 

you cannot sue for preparation time for appealing via a recognised procedure.

 

 

He won the POPLA appeal so as he accepted the terms of using POPLA's process you cant then complain afterwards that you had to spend some time preparing your case. Pure folly to do so.

 

 

Suing the parking co will only be successful if it can be shown that they obtained the keeper details unlawfully or without reasonable cause and then used that data improperly.

 

 

This is not the same as winning a POPLA appeal ( but in this case he does appear to hav a good case).

 

 

In the origianl post he does mention that passing his details on to the dca was in his opinion a breach when it isnt.

 

 

The law makes clear differentiations between the types of agencies servants and other parties in this regard

 

That is why he cant find any refeence to it

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the origianl post he does mention that passing his details on to the dca was in his opinion a breach when it isnt.

Sorry, but I disagree. Surely if the data is obtained unlawfully, any processing that is done with it, including passing it on to a DCA, is likewise unlawful

 

ETA - it seems that DVLA take a similar view ;-)

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/dvla-confirm-massive-data-protection.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

you have completely misunderstood the difference between the collection activity of a dca and MIL, who claim to have bought a debt.

 

 

The DVLA's view was on the parking co's activity, not MIL's.

 

 

MIL lose in court becasue they have no locus standi not because of a breach of the DPA.

Different law governing property.

 

You are entitled to your opinion but if the OP continues going down that particular road he will learn a dreadful lesson when he actually has a decent claim against one party and should stick with that.

 

 

If a company is registered with the ICO they can process data without people's permission subject to their registration conditions.

 

 

The entire point about suing a parking co as per VCS v Philip is that the parking co lied to obtain the information in the first place, not what they did with that information.

 

 

The same applies here, only the parking co obtained the info unlawfully, the dissemination to a dca is allowed under specific parts of the DPA

 

Suing anyone else will lose him money and may very well get the only decent claim thrown out to boot if he names everyone else as co-respondents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't misunderstood anything.

 

 

The OP wanted to know if what he'd been told was true

- that the parking company had breached the DPA by passing his details on to a DCA (like MIL) and it matters not if the debt has been assigned or the DCA is acting as an agent for the parking company.

 

DVLA have said that,

under the terms of the KADOE contract,

a parking company cannot pass data onto MIL without DVLA's permission.

They didn't have this permission ergo the data has been disclosed to a third party (MIL) unlawfully.

 

 

It makes no difference what the parking company's DPA registration says.

Put simply, your assertion that

"The entire point about suing a parking co as per VCS v Philip is that the parking co lied to obtain the information in the first place, not what they did with that information" is completely wrong in this case.

 

 

This particular case is entirely about what the parking companies did with the data after they had obtained it

- they did something they were not allowed to do based on KADOE and irrespective of their DPA registration - i.e. they disclosed it unlawfully.

 

The relevance to the OP is that here is an example of a data protection breach caused by a parking company disclosing data to a debt collector.

 

 

I stand by my original point that,

if data is obtained unlawfully,

it cannot possibly be processed or disclosed without breaking the DPA whatever the registration of the processor might say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a parking company cannot pass data onto MIL without DVLA's permission.

They didn't have this permission ergo the data has been disclosed to a third party (MIL) unlawfully.

 

 

it could depend on who the DCA are claiming on behalf of - the parking company or as in the MIL case, themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dca's are normally covered under "legitimate interests" exemptions as they act for the credotor. the real problem is that parking co's are rarely creditors of legitimate debts but this is all a red herring as far as the OP's case, he still only has 1 target to go after. It is not an offence to receive information that is improperly obtained.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...